Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

While I don't doubt their motives it is counter-intuitive to think they would close up shop and say "we're done here". They seem to revel in creating tests where cars perform poorly so they can be perceived as Knights in shining armor forcing the big bad auto mfrs to build safer cars against their will. Note how they changed the criteria for some test (forgot which one exactly) so that a car that got a 5 star rating a few years ago now only gets 3. That's sensationalistic and wrong. They should have left the old cars as a 5 and raised the scale for newer safer cars to 6 or 7. Instead they simply changed the grading curve because it's easier to call for change when something scores "fair" or "poor" than saying they want to improve something that's already 5 star.

And once you have that power it's not easy to give it up. If we see yet another slight variation on an existing test where the current vehicles all score poorly then that should tell you something.

The NHTSA revised their tests in 2011, not IIHS. Go to safercar.gov. The IIHS is a pure expense for the insurance industry. They have no need to be considered knights in shining armor. The IIHS earns no revenue. Is anyone going to go out and buy more insurance to thank the insurance industry for funding the IIHS. Besides, considering it has existed for decades, it has virtually no name recognition. Most people assume the govt is performing these tests. They are in it for one reason - money - safer cars mean lower payouts. Trust me, the companies who fund the IIHS would gladly subcontract with the NHTSA to do these tests and disband the IIHS if the NHTSA would do it for less than the cost to fund the IIHS.

I didn't say it was the insurance companies - I'm talking about the IIHS itself and it's simply human nature.

I could be wrong but this strikes me as the same situation with union contract negotiators. If the negotiators (on both sides) said they were happy with the contract they just negotiated 3 years ago then they wouldn't be needed. So every 3 years they come up with new demands thus guaranteeing themselves a job for the next 3 years even is the current contract was really really good.

Drove from central CT to about 25 miles north of Detroit and back over the weekend.3 people and a pretty full trunk, although nothing too heavy.Overall, averaged 30.8 mpg. Worst tank, really a little more than 1/2 was the first one 26.2.It was cool, raining and uphill.Best tank was the last one, also a little more than 1/2 a tank, warm and downhill, average 34.8.Ran the A/C the whole way back.The PA hills didn't bother the car at all, other than the ride being kind of abrupt at times on the worst roads. After the first 15-20 miles or so after crossing over from New York, they go a lot better. Michigan also has some roads in need of repair.There must have been a bit of tail wind on the way home, because the trucks didn't slow dramatically on the uphills.

I understand your point. They do publish a monthly newsletter and want to be relevant. Obviously, if you work for the IIHS, you have a stake in it's continued existence but the point I was trying to make is it is similar to a subsidiary of a corporation that would not hesitate to shut it down if it wasn't contributing to the bottomline in some way at an appropriate level. For example, if the insurance industry thought that investing the money in driver training would be more beneficial, they could consider cutting funding to the IIHS. In your example, it's the union itself that is trying to validate it's existence, not a non-necessary component as the IIHS is to the insurance industry.

Except the insurance company want tests to show a car is " unsafe" or sustains " excessive damage" in an accident so they can justify raising their rates so they can make more profit. The NHTSA may not give them enough ammo for that.

I'm not aware that the IIHS test results are factored in when establishing rates. The Highway Loss Data Institute, a sister organization to the IIHS, compiles statistics regarding medical and property claims which is used to calculate premiums.

Do you really think the insurance industry is financing the IIHS tests and not using them in some way to increase profits? Yes they are saving a bit on injury/death claims, but they could probably use the money as effectively ( if not more so) to lobby for stricter safety measures ( which I am sure they are doing as well, all in the name of being " concerned corporate citizens". Big industry doesn't do anything unless it helps their bottom line, as was pointed out above most people think the IIHS tests are government tests so they aren't helping improve the image of the insurance companies, and I doubt the returns on injury and death claims alone can justify the institute's costs, so you really think if the insurance industry has data saying that they Camry has a higher risk of injury or death from a certain type of accident than its other midsized competition that they aren't going to raise the rates on it?

I actually like the tail end of the previous Malibu better than the Camaro-copy style units in the 2013. Chevy is trying to tie all of their models together with the four square taillight theme, even putting them on the new Corvette, which traditionally has had four round units, making some Corvette traditionalists a little upset. The new Impala is a looker inside and out (especially in blue w/ tan interior), and in the July C/D it is put up against 5 other large sedans in a comparo. These would represent the next step up from the mid-sizer's discussed here. Avalon won, and Chevy came in 2nd. Good job there GM. All the Malibu really needs is more room in the back seat, and an IP redesign with the same high quality materials that are in the Impala.

Good point. I forgot about the 5' 3" wife of Wayne21. The passenger seat of the base Optima EX has no height adjustment. I did not realize that until after I bought it. My last vehicle was an SUV with an 8 way power passenger seat , so the thought never occurred to me that it would be a problem.

Fellow owners of the Optima EX have added washers and installed taller bolts to raise the seat an 1 1/2 inches, but I am afraid that would not be safe in an accident.

Of course they will raise rates on the Camry if they have data that backs it up and they do! Re-read my previous comment. The insurance industry funds the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). That is the organization that compiles the statistics used to determine rates, not the IIHS. Are you aware that the IIHS doesn't even perform all the tests it reports? The side impact tests are done by the auto companies themselves based on specs provided by the IIHS and they report back to the IIHS. HLDI and the IIHS are affiliates.

Fellow owners of the Optima EX have added washers and installed taller bolts to raise the seat an 1 1/2 inches, but I am afraid that would not be safe in an accident.

I would check with my insurance company before doing something like that. I could see someone argue that your modification of the vehicle's seat altered the safety features of the vehicle. As for me, I'm not remotely interested in buying a new car then having to modify it for my wife to ride in the passenger seat. Guess it's just the thought of it to me.

Like I said "I am afraid it would not be safe in an accident". On the Optima site some member's have done it, but I am not one of them. My kids will get taller! (Eventually). Still, would it have killed Kia to include a mechanical height adjustment? I mean it is a family sedan. Who do they think is going to sit there? Well for most families the better half is, and not being able to see out is a glaring deficiency IMO.

Like I said "I am afraid it would not be safe in an accident". On the Optima site some member's have done it, but I am not one of them. My kids will get taller! (Eventually). Still, would it have killed Kia to include a mechanical height adjustment? I mean it is a family sedan. Who do they think is going to sit there? Well for most families the better half is, and not being able to see out is a glaring deficiency IMO.

It's not just Kia, but I think most of the manufacturers. The Malibu had a passenger seat that went forward and back mechanically, but an electric motor to elevate it (not remotely interested in a Malibu though). It's the only one I've seen so far, but I really just started looking. We'll likely buy in Sep/Oct timeframe so I have plenty of time to look. As soon as my wife sat in the sonata she just got out of the car (sat too low) and that ended that possibility. If there are none I may just look for another crossover that sits higher.

My 75 year old mother can barely get out of mine. I usually help her up. When she sits she guesses where the seat is and kind of falls in. The price I pay for a swoopy car. A price I can afford IMO. Plus, if she and the wife can't see out, then they can't back seat drive!

That's just blasphemy. A power seat and they sc****d us on a height adjuster? I mean they already have the mechanism in stock for the drivers seat...so why a different part number for the passenger? I wonder if it has to do with safety; like it is easier to place airbags for an occupant that can't move up and down? Manufacturers: If you are reading this: I will HAPPILY exchange all of the electronic auto-dimming rear-view mirror crap (with 5 other useless buttons on it), for a whopping $5 worth of steel to raise the passenger seat!!!

You can put me down for that exchange, too. They seem to be more interested in selling electronic gadgets with a car attached to it. Malibu is the only car (rented for 5 days) that I have seen with a height adjustment to the passenger seat. Unfortunately, that seat comes with a Malibu attached to it.

I guess I must be the anomaly. I don't want all those electronics. I don't like the idea that I have to pay for them in spite of not wanting them. I don't talk on the phone when driving. I continue to turn my head or use mirrors to see cars around and behind me (aside from knowing it's there, I have never even looked in my rearview camera). When I want to watch a movie I do it at home. I'm looking for reliable, safe transportation - that allows my wife to look out of the car when she's a passenger. I believe they put all the electronics in for a variety of reasons which include, but are not limited to: the technology is available, they can make a profit off each piece they put in, a generation wishing to be entertained is upon us, and they dumb down the driving skills required to accommodate that generation.

I'm with you. I do like some conveniences, like power windows/mirrors/locks, remote locking, remote trunk release, cruise control, and trip computer. I also appreciate little touches like map lights, illuminated vanity mirrors, and outside thermometer. I like ABS and ESC for their safety. And I grew fond of the seat heaters in my wife's Sonata this past long winter. But I have no problem adjusting the driver's seat and climate control manually, I like simple stereo controls, I can fold the side mirrors myself if I need to. And I like shifting for myself, although sticks are getting very hard to come by.

From this week's USA TodayAfter loads of criticism, Ford is taking some of the touch out of MyFord Touch, its touch screen-based infotainment system.

It is restoring knobs to the controls, much as it has done all along in its F-150 trucks. The announcement comes two days before J.D. Power and Associates is due to announce its annual Initial Quality Survey, a closely watched industry measure. For the past two years, the survey has dramatically lowered Ford's ranking in overall quality, apparently largely because of the complicated and distracting infotainment system controls. Each time, Ford executives said they are fixing the problem.

Incidentally, while I appreciate the many safety features on my wife's Volvo, you need to take your eyes off the road for too many seconds to switch from FM, AM and Satellite

I really appreciate that you don't practice distractive driving but PLEASE look in your rearview camera when in reverse. It may prevent an injury/death of a child that you wouldn't see otherwise. Thank you.